Abdalla v. Yehia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abdalla v. Yehia

246 A.D.2d 373, 667 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 265

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 373 (Abdalla v. Yehia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abdalla v. Yehia, 246 A.D.2d 373, 667 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, [374]*374J.), entered on or about December 24, 1996, which granted third-party plaintiffs motion for a declaration that third-party defendant indemnify and provide liability insurance coverage to defendant Ogbenna, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the third-party complaint dismissed for third-party plaintiffs lack of standing to commence such an impleader. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of third-party defendant-appellant dismissing the third-party complaint.

The injured plaintiffs sued the driver/owner of the vehicle in which they were riding, and the driver/owner of the vehicle with which they collided. Plaintiffs’ driver/owner (defendant and third-party plaintiff herein) then impleaded his co-defendant’s insurer, and moved for declaratory judgment on the question of indemnification. The defense in the third-party action was that the co-defendant’s insurance policy had been cancelled nine months prior to the accident. The issue considered by the motion court was whether the cancellation of the co-defendant’s insurance policy had been accomplished in accordance with law and proper procedure.

What the court overlooked was the issue of standing to bring the third-party action in the first place. The defendant and third-party plaintiff was not the insured of the third-party defendant, and thus had no legally cognizable interest in the relationship between the co-defendant and his insurer (see, Clarendon Place Corp. v Landmark Ins. Co., 182 AD2d 6, appeal dismissed and lv denied 80 NY2d 918). A stranger to an insurance agreement acquires no right to enforce the insurer’s obligation until a judgment against the insured has been rendered and remains unsatisfied (Hershberger v Schwartz, 198 AD2d 859, 860). The third-party action should have been dismissed. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, [374]*374J.), entered on or about December 24, 1996, which granted third-party plaintiffs motion for a declaration that third-party defendant indemnify and provide liability insurance coverage to defendant Ogbenna, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the third-party complaint dismissed for third-party plaintiffs lack of standing to commence such an impleader. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of third-party defendant-appellant dismissing the third-party complaint.

The injured plaintiffs sued the driver/owner of the vehicle in which they were riding, and the driver/owner of the vehicle with which they collided. Plaintiffs’ driver/owner (defendant and third-party plaintiff herein) then impleaded his co-defendant’s insurer, and moved for declaratory judgment on the question of indemnification. The defense in the third-party action was that the co-defendant’s insurance policy had been cancelled nine months prior to the accident. The issue considered by the motion court was whether the cancellation of the co-defendant’s insurance policy had been accomplished in accordance with law and proper procedure.

What the court overlooked was the issue of standing to bring the third-party action in the first place. The defendant and third-party plaintiff was not the insured of the third-party defendant, and thus had no legally cognizable interest in the relationship between the co-defendant and his insurer (see, Clarendon Place Corp. v Landmark Ins. Co., 182 AD2d 6, appeal dismissed and lv denied 80 NY2d 918). A stranger to an insurance agreement acquires no right to enforce the insurer’s obligation until a judgment against the insured has been rendered and remains unsatisfied (Hershberger v Schwartz, 198 AD2d 859, 860). The third-party action should have been dismissed. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 373, 667 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdalla-v-yehia-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack